dgeiser at mendel.berkeley.edu
Mon Nov 4 12:22:53 EST 1996
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> John,
jmurphy at TFM.FMNH.ORG writes:
>Ainsworth and Bisby
>(1983) define the papulospore as a small rounded propagule comprising one
>or more enlarged central cells surrounded by a sheath of smaller cells.
>The question remains (for me, anyway), do these central cells act as
>conidia? If so, then functionally a papulospore is similar to a
If the cells act as dispersed propagules, then I agree that it
would indicate a degree of functional similarity. Enough to call
them analagous? I guess so.
Another question is the phylogenetic placement of Papulaspora. If
it's aligned with the Plectomycetes, then is it reasonable to
suspect that the papulaspore is a modified cleistothecium? If
it is, then I think we're back in the realm of homology. I
don't know of any molecular or other data on the subject. The
AInsworth and Bisby definition sounds like a young cleistothecium
> By the way, the reference to anal-retentiveness is not without
>precedence in Mycology.
Wait a minute - is the term hyphenated? :-)
Dave Geiser, unabashed anal-retentive
More information about the Mycology